tv [untitled] November 8, 2010 4:00pm-4:30pm PST
and women are better represented, comprising about 10% of this population. due to the large number of older look to see how many local residents were entering apprenticeship programs, even though we understand this is just a slice of the new entrants. this charts as the history of san francisco resident apprentice in takes over the last 10 years. when we compare the number of san francisco resident apprentices coming in between 2000 and 2009 to the number of san francisco apprentices that city billed directly ushered into apprenticeship programs, we found that by 2009, 44% of the san francisco resident in texas could be directly attributed to the city build program. the next slide -- this is the one everyone has enjoyed focusing on. it provides a picture of the
overall resident hiring on city and county projects over the last 13 months. the total project hours. 14% were worked by san francisco resident journey people, and 6% were worked by san francisco resident apprentices. a further look reveals that 21% of the jury hours were worked by san francisco residents, but 59% of the apprentice hours were worked by san francisco resident apprentices. this is a composite picture. behind these numbers, there is significant variation in the participation percentage of san francisco residents. it varies from project to project and varies greatly from trade to trade. looking just at the journey
people who are working on city and county projects, the trades that accounted for the greatest number of hours on these projects were laborers, carpenters, and dry wall finishers, capers, and plumbers. you can see the percentages for these highest demand trades that were san francisco journey workers. journey workers working on city and county projects are coming from neighborhoods across the city. the largest numbers seem to be coming from bayview, hunters point, in the side, excelsior, and mission-burn all heights. -- engleside, excelsior, and mission-bernal heights. this is not taking into account the number of hours they worked on the city and county projects. it is a different view. we did a thing -- the same thing for apprentices. the trades that accounted for
the apprentices in the greatest work hours on city and county projects are almost the same as for the journey people, but in a somewhat different order. this slide shows the percentage of the overall hours in each of these trades worked by san francisco resident apprentices. again, the view -- this is the second view of the trades with the highest percentage of hours worked by san francisco residents, no matter how many those hours are. it gives you a different view of what is happening. similar to the journey workers, the apprentices are coming -- have a similar neighborhood distribution, similar to the journey workers. the largest number come from debut, hunters point, engleside, and excelsior. we're going to shift gears and look at the demand side. regenerative work force projections for skilled trades based on the 10-year capital plan to give us a view of the magnitude and type of work the
city will be generating over the next 10 years. we estimate the total workforce need to be around 59,664 full- time equivalents, with the greatest demand during the first five years. that averages about 7680 full- time equivalent annually. the stickers off to about 4251 workers annually for the later five years. the five trades in greatest demand throughout this entire period are estimated to be laborers, cement mixers, teamsters, and drivers. these are based on the upcoming work. they are not based on the entire universe of construction work that will take place. the 10-year plan does not capture many redevelopment agency projects, nor any project sponsored by the mayor's office of housing. it does not include any of the privately sponsored construction
work, including such large projects as mission bay or the potential expansion of california pacific medical center. there were a lot of findings that raise a number of issues related to local hiring policy. the following are the four that we felt were the most prominent. the first is demand. we believe that the work force projection, and really the aging of the work force, educate their is a significant demand for workers over the next 10 years. in terms of supplier availability, unemployment among san francisco resident construction workers and incumbent workers with low earnings signal an ample pool of president construction workers. in terms of local hire targets, currently 27% of the construction hours are going to san francisco residents on city and county projects via a good
faith effort. there is a city pipeline to direct san francisco pipelines to jobs. initial local hire is 20 by%. that seems completely doable. the supply of workers could increase over time. the other aspect of moving people into these jobs is the pipeline. it seems that city built, the city construction workforce program, does provide the requisite infrastructure to support expanded local hire. in closing, our work certainly revealed that the mandatory nature in the inclusion of contractors incentives, and a number of other provisions in the proposed san francisco local hiring construction policy, are definitely cutting edge. this concludes my portion of this presentation. i look forward to your questions. supervisor avalos: thank you, ms. lester.
mr. rodriguez is going to talk about the city build program, work force development, and the pipeline. >> i am the director of city build from the department of economic and work force development. with this presentation, i will give you a sybil's of active projects that san francisco is currently under -- i will give you examples of two active project san francisco is currently working on. we will measure the participation rate by individual trade unions. the numbers that were presented in both the caa bright line study and the labor market analysis really spoke to the total participation on the given project, not each individual breakdown of how each trade is doing. i wanted to spend just a little bit of time talking about what
that looks like on current projects. then i will look at where some of the challenges are. last, i will talk a little bit about the infrastructure we have in place in terms of trying to increase the pool of workers in san francisco who are capable, trained, and qualified to perform work here in san francisco. the first project a wanted to spend a little time on is the san francisco public utility commission headquarter building just down the street. it is a $200 million project. just to give you a sense of the size, it is about 8% in terms of where we are in construction. today, we have had about 35 subcontractors. thinking of the legislation, it would be subject to the mandatory participation rate. we estimate over 100 additional
subcontractors will come on to this project to complete this building. the total hours worked are just about 63,500. the total hours worked on this project that have been submitted to the city. the will retract is ours is that the contractors as a requirement -- the way we will track these hours is that the contractors as the requirement must provide a certified payroll to the city electronically. before, they were xerox and copies of their payroll reports. we now have that on an almost real-time basis. we know how the project is done. from this perspective, about 30% to date of 8% work complete is being performed by san francisco residents. if we take it down to the next level and look at specifically each trade package that has been bid out and is currently under construction, you get a sense of
some of the types of trade that have touched that project to date, what some of the hours are, and what the total workforce is. this number changes on a week by week basis as more folks come in. you may need more glazers, plasterers, laborers. the numbers continue to fluctuate. this gives you a sense that these particular trade unions are all at 30% or higher, meeting the minimum requirements that are being proposed in the legislation. next, i wanted to talk about those trades that are other trades that have been working on the project and may not be at the 30%. again, you have plumbers, pile drivers. clearly, they are not registering san francisco residence. if you look at the hours, clearly they are not -- these types of trade or trade packages are not generating the bulk of
the hours. right now, you are seeing the ironworkers. think of the construction of the building if you pass by it. a lot of regard is going up on the building. clearly, they represent the largest portion of workers to date on that. you get a sense of the percentages on there. next, i wanted to focus on different types of projects. clearly, the type, level, and complexity of construction projects in san francisco are important to look at. we sought a $200 million project. now i want to spend a little time walking you through the results around some of the construction of our libraries in our various their goods. supervisor avalos: before you go on i want to ask if you are going to be able to summarize what you see the difference is, even within the puc project, between some of the trades showing higher local hiring and versus those that are not. what is happening differently
there? compare that to the other projects you're going to show us. they were able to achieve in certain areas higher levels. >> let me go to the library project and then i will speak to that question. not all the projects that have been part of the san francisco branch library improvement project are in the data set i am sharing with you. we are only going to look at eight examples. some of the previous libraries that were built prior to us mandating the system of collecting the data, we do not have it electronically. i will give you a sense of some of the projects that are being performed in the libraries. it gives you a sense of these libraries and where they are with respect -- again, this is total hours. it is the percentage of san francisco residents having worked on them. in this case, all the library's that we have data for that are either currently completed in
construction -- that are either currently oregon completed in construction that represent greater than 60% local production. why are these as low as 16% and as high as 63%? there are all over the map. when you look at construction in san francisco and how we encourage local higher percentages of san francisco residents, it is a combination of strategies we years. one is the city policy around encouraging the use of local business enterprises, our lbe programs. with many of these based in san francisco, the vast majority employee san francisco residents as core work force. a greater number of lbe participation translates into a higher number of residents working on them. equally, the challenge was
smaller projects is that many contractors will win a bid, will come to work, and bring their core group. that means there will not need any additional workers to perform a set of tasks, a scope of work. when there are no opportunities to hire additional focus on to the project, our office is not in a position under good faith to provide that contractor with any new workers. they do not need it. they came in to perform the work. they came in with their core crew of 10, 5, or 20. whatever that number is. there were no new opportunities created where we could try to move the needle. those are some of the aspects we look at. when we work with contractors, before they even assemble onto the site, we work with them in multiple ways. we encourage the private contractor, the general, to hire lbe's.
we say goes through your core work force and look at the folks who have been employed by your company. looking at the collective bargaining agreements, for example -- a carpentry company could look to see if they have hired any san francisco residents prior, and assign those individuals on to the project. it is assigning the core members they have worked with previously and assigning them to this work. ultimately, the other aspect we do is we work with contractors who are doing public court in san francisco to maximize the opportunities of bringing on apprentices onto a project site. all our public works projects currently by state law requires that, a maximum of 20% of the work hours should be performed by apprentices. we try to work with each of the contractors in order to maximize the opportunity.
not all projects in san francisco have apprentices. if a contractor comes on board and only need four laborers or only need four pile drivers, the opportunity to bring on an apprentice is not there. larger projects provide us with greater opportunity because you have a larger core base of journey workers that we can begin to prioritize apprentices. chairperson maxwell: what about doyle drive? >> that is federally funded. it is a project that is being managed out of caltrans and the san francisco transportation authority. they are the project manager on that side. what city build has been able to do is to work with them to find opportunities in the upcoming large contracts, again to be able to encourage using good
faith to encourage those contractors to hire out of our local union halls here in san francisco, and again to make requests of san francisco residents so the king of opportunities out on -- tso they can have opportunities out on doyle drive. the opportunities are limited given the scope and nature of federal funding requirements. chairperson maxwell: federal funding makes it difficult because we cannot do what? >> correct. certainly, funding dictates a lot of local hire and what our office is able to do. if the dollars that are being used by one of our contract in departments came from the federal stimulus bill or is an award the received from the department of transportation, for example, there are explicit
provisions on federal dollars being used for specifically local hire. "we often do is use the city first source language on federal contractors, again working with the -- trying to maximize opportunities. just because there are federal dollars on the project does not discourage our participation in encouraging contractors to hire san franciscans. it just means the mandate for public works projects that have federal funding is much more difficult. and then i just wanted again to give you a sense of the library project, looking at the project by trade in particular. the slide will show you that here are a particular set of traits that all have met at least 30% or greater working on the library project. if you look at carpenter's,
laborers represent the bulk of the hours. both are above 40% participation rate on these projects. a lot of this is opportunities that lbe businesses in san francisco have to participate. we are trying to encourage them to do more. to give a sense of the trades that are more middle -- where we did not have too much representation -- you have a whole set of additional trades that are at 10% or greater in terms of participation. again, i wanted just to give you an illustration that there are san francisco residents in a vast majority of the trades that touch public work in san francisco. there are some here that you can see we did not have very many hours. if you look at the brick tenders, elevator construction, and the field surveyor, we did not have a lot of hours.
we spent a lot of time focused on the craft that have opportunities and hours in order to try to make some changes. quickly moving on to the pipeline in terms of how we can influence -- chairperson maxwell: every tall building has elevators. we are not letting them off the hook, right? >> correct. when i was suggesting, supervisor, was that in the examples of the library project we did not see a lot of elevator work. we focused to try to move that needle. chairperson maxwell: library projects, you are right. i keep thinking about other things. you are right. >> i want to talk a little bit about city infrastructure in terms of trying to increase the supply of qualified san francisco residents in the building trade. since city build started, we have conducted 10 cycles, 10 academy class is in the last five years. it takes a lot of work in order
to recruit, to sustain our residents in our programs. it is an intensive program. it is the partnership the city has with labor, with our community based organizations to go out on a daily basis to recruit folks, assist them in order to be qualified for the program, and ultimately provide case management support during the entire training. it is a growing system. but i wanted to give you a sense that the capacity is there in order to move and trained folks. we have also expanded opportunities for training across all industries. city build tries on a daily basis to have our curriculum be stellar to the point that a contractor has no excuse not to hire a graduate of our program, so that no apprentice program, or any comments about our greta
-- we can meet or exceed all of their qualifications for entrance into an apprentice program. that is what we are designed to do, to give folks success. to give you a sense of the number of placements or referrals we have made on two projects, we have basically assisted over 200,000 san franciscans to work on public works projects. about 1400 of them were referred to public works. because we have first source here in san francisco, a condition of approval from the planning department, large planning and construction projects have to adhere to good faith efforts. we have been successful in getting san francisco residents on privately funded projects. to give you a sense of the demographics in terms of the type of residents that are at our community based organizations, that partners are going after, we are increasing the number of women in the
trades by our active recruitment, our active efforts to try to specifically on federally funded projects, where they do have a requirement for participation of women in the trades, to maximize those opportunities and give you a sense of the scope and diversity of our folks. last, i wanted to share with you a sense of where our residents are coming from. they are all over san francisco. again, it is our partnership with our cbos that provide us with the access to our communities and our residents in order to maximize placements. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. i cannot overstate how much support you have given us in crafting this legislation. i really appreciate your work. mr. rodriguez, mr. iglesias, and
ms. simmons as well. what i wanted to do at this point in the hearing is to discuss -- to hear from chris iglesias first. then i will discuss the legislation and we will go into public comment. >> that pretty much concludes the presentations, but i did want to include that what we are working on right now -- we are working primarily with the chapter 6 contract requirements, including the human rights commission, reviewing the legislation and identifying areas of concern and possible amendments to them. we will get back to you. some of those include three levels. when we kick in -- size of projects? when do we escalate to a 50% mandate? there is administrative flexibility and greater coordination in reporting, greater financial incentives. these are looking -- we are looking at these with the
departments. harlan kelly with the puc is here. we have a lot of participating partners here today. i think it is also important to know that these chapters -- this will impact chapter 6. over the past few years, this board has been very proactive in listening to the contract in community, the contracting industry, about making changes to chapter 6 to streamline doing business to the city. this board has done that. this board and as mayor of made many changes over the past few years to streamline payments and design flexibility, trying to make san francisco and is your place to do business. as the board finished that, we had the chapter 14 amendment with hrc increasing the participation and beefing up some of the tools for them to get more local lbes in the mix
on city contracting. this legislation is in line with a lot of the activities the board has taken around chapter 6. chairperson maxwell: i know this is a little off, but as we go forward with our green academy and hour nurse academy, the information we are getting and some of the things we are doing with this legislation, d.c. that is going to be helpful or is kind of -- do you see that is going to be helpful, letting people know what we're going to be asking for? the see this as helpful for that? >> i think this is a perfect segue for director simmons to maybe address that a little more broadly. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. just to the point on the other sector academies we started, rhonda simmons, director of corporate development. we have a health care academy and what we call a train green academy.
both those are modeled after citybuild. i think the long-term strategy is to try to grow those in a similar way in which we have citybuild. we just graduated our first two clauses. i think you have seen that -- attended those graduations. i think citybuild set a template for us to use moving forward and to expand what we are trying to do in terms of job training and getting san francisco residents to work. chairperson maxwell: thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you chair maxwell, and thank you for your presentations ms. simmons, mr. iglesias, and what i want to do before going to public comment is to address the amendments to chapter 6 of the ad man code. we are replacing section 6.22 g, which is the program replacing
language to provide the proposed mandate. actually, my office is going to make copies for members of the community. i only have five copies here. i will make sure you get copies of you concede dealing with yourself. -- so you can see the language yourself. this will create mandatory local hiring, mandatory local hiring by trade, starting at 30% and increasing 10% each year for three years, looking at disadvantaged workers. at least half the minimum number of workers and -- of hires must be disadvantaged workers, someone living in areas with unemployment rates that are 150% of the median san francisco unemployment rate. apprentice requirements -- for covered projects advertised after the effective date of the projects, it requires at least
50% of product work hours the performed by local residents with low less than 25% of apprentice project work hours performed by disadvantaged workers. we want to require application of the project to public works or improvement contracts estimated to cost more than $350 thousand. that will be the threshold for contracts that would fit under this new legislation. to each contractor and subcontractor who performs more than $100,000 of project work on such projects it applies. for subcontractors, a lower threshold. reciprocity for project outside of the city. with prior application of the policy to city projects constructed outside of the city with percentage requirements proportional to city investment in the project. we have to look of what is happening in other cities to see if we can work out agreements across other cities so we can